Also, I had a question, for when submitting a band it says that splits can, only be posted once the band is approved, but what if that is the only release they have? Out they have a full length but it isn't metal and the split that was released after is? The reason I ask us that I want to submit a local band that used to play hardcore punk but changed their sound to Doom/Sludge/ Apocalyptic Crust

Buffalo were judged more rock than metal. They were pretty heavy for their time, but not especially so to warrant an exception. I listened to "Volcanic Rock" and some of their other stuff again not too long ago, thinking about maybe adding them; no doubt an awesome band and some parts can be pretty metal, but I'd consider them a heavy rock act, even within the context of their time.

I certainly do respect this websites decision to not include them, however, I would say that the "heavy for their time" argument is indeed valid because the 70's was truly the dawn of heavy metal. In the context of the 1970's, Buffalo would have been considered heavy metal. Either way, once again, I respect the websites decision, I just ask for a re consideration of their status, that's all.

Citing SLB, Deep Purple, etc... in support of your argument is a bad idea here. First, we don't compare artists, we judge them individually. Second, we're fully aware that those bands might be considered rock generally speaking, but some of them were included partly based on their historical importance. It's also clearly stated in the rules. You may argue that for Buffalo as well, but please respect our decision there.

One more thing. I get the whole "judging bands based on their own sound" thing and I completely agree with the addition of SLB, Deep Purple, Budgie, etc. However, I would like to mention that if we are going for historic significance, then bands such as Buffalo (and a few others) deserve a second look.

I could argue that Humble Pie deserves to be on here because their first album As Safe As Yesterday was deemed "heavy metal" by Rolling Stone in 1970 (Predating the review for SLB) yet I as well as others would obviously disagree that Humble Pie is heavy metal.

I am aware that some 70's groups are very hard to judge considering the blurred lines throughout that area, so don't take this as me trying to undermine the administrators or anything like that.

Except that nu-metal started in the mid-90's, so your "anachronism" analogy is full of fail.

Analogy ? Ever heard of reductio ad absurdum ?

This is revisionism. The nu-metal term appeared around 1998 (probably in Germany; anyone knows exactly?). It's easy to retrospectively pinpoint the influences to the genre, but a line must be drawn. In 1995, almost nobody in Québec let alone in TSPC's entourage heard of Korn, System of a Down, Slipknot or Limp Bizkit. I don't think TSPC created nu metal independently of Korn or anyone else; they just happened to be influenced by some of the same bands. Plus these songs had been in the making for a few years already. They don't sound like nu metal to me any more than "Walk" by Pantera does. As for the mallcore label, it could apply to any band whose music is sold at Wal-Mart.

Yes, TSPC were influenced by the rap-friendly current in metal in addition to Pantera. I'm not saying they were any good, or that they should absolutely be added to this encyclopedia, but groove "non-nu metal" metal seemed like where they would fall if they had to be shoehorned in a category.

Morrigan wrote:

For fuck's sake, one of those TSPC songs had pretty much rapping in it, you don't get more mallcore than that.

Another current that bothers me is the tendency (displayed here in and in a few other posts) to cite an obvious-non-metal song or song segment in a band's discography to arbitrate on their non-metalness. It would be better to use an approximate average of a band's songs to speak of their metalness. Almost every Ozzy-era Black Sabbath album has one or more non-metal songs (acoustic instrumentals or things like Changes or It's Alright). Anyone trying to use that kind of logic on them would be an idiot.

Consistency.

_________________No, we are not living in a dream, and don't call me Shirley.

Morri wasn't using this part of the song to say "here ya go, there's rap, so it's not metal", it was more like "they're really not acceptable based on our standards, they even have some rap influences!"

When I stated that it was "early nu-metal" I was expressing how it sounds. No matter how "anachronistic" you might blow it out of proportion to be, or whatever logical fallacies you might draw on this justification, the "intersubjective" truth I took away from the music is that it best fit with the sound typical for early nu-metal acts. The band fits the time; it's certainly not implausible that the band members might have been influenced by the early nu-metal acts (I don't presume to know one way or another, as you are so certain doing); and, more frankly, it's entirely possible that by drawing on the same influences of early nu-metal acts that this band performed a common sound. All of that doesn't equate, however, with the reality that the band plays a sound akin to, or a part of, that movement known as nu-metal. It isn't quite crossover; it draws but isn't significantly built on punk; and groove it fails to be. The closest it comes in sound to being similar to any genre of music is nu-metal, sorry, and we don't accept that form of music here.

Now, I half expect that you will continue this discussion like a trial run out of a debate club, and that's fine and dandy, and you have all right to complain about the fact that you find our assessments to be idiotic or misguided. But from this point on we may choose to ignore you, as you have failed to provide any reasoning for why the music is anything but what we have judged it to be - non-metal - and that's rather the purpose for posting in this thread. At the end of the day, our duty here is to judge music for being non-metal or metal, not to get caught up in arguments about the labels applied to different forms of non-metal music once we've made that assessment.

I understand these terms. Please bear with this one last post on the topic, I'm not solliciting an answer, just expressing an opinion.

The only thing I disagree with, and am willing to agree to disagree after this post, is labelling a band's style with a term that didn't exist at the time the music was created except for some exceptions.

We call Mozart, Bach or whatever: baroque, classical, etc.. Fine. What we call blues or folk was not called blues or folk back then. We call Black Sabbath metal though it took many years before the term caught on. We can call Korn nu-metal when referring to their 1994 album. These are exceptions that are understandable (pionneers of the genre, or the fact that musical journalism as we know it today didn't exist in the 1700s, etc). But for TSPC, "proto nu metal", perhaps, but not "early"; just like Biohazard is not nu metal but "rap metal" or whatever other term that was around then.

_________________No, we are not living in a dream, and don't call me Shirley.

Sebkha-Chott has been rejected (http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Sebkha-Chott/3540355999), but I think this is an error.Actually Sebkha-Chott plays metal and many other styles, all mixed. Some of the albums are not "predominantly" metal, some others are. I would suggest to listen to The Ne[XXX]t Epilog, and maybe to scan a bit the tunes, cause they indeed don't begin with metal parts.As others proofs that Sebkha-Chott belongs metal world, they've been playing twice at Brutal Assault Festival in Czech Republic (alongisde with Nile, Behemoth, Napalm Death...), and they've been many times reviewed in metal mag/webzines (metal1.info, Hard'n'Heavy, Hard Rock Mag, ...).You might want to listen to that particular tracks to get a bit of metal (skipping the introduction):http://sebkhachott.bandcamp.com/track/nigla-h-ii-including-surfing-couches

Also, I had a question, for when submitting a band it says that splits can, only be posted once the band is approved, but what if that is the only release they have? Out they have a full length but it isn't metal and the split that was released after is? The reason I ask us that I want to submit a local band that used to play hardcore punk but changed their sound to Doom/Sludge/ Apocalyptic Crust

We are generally more happy with predominantly metal full-lengths, not EPs or splits. So I'd wait for now if the full-length really is just punk. Not sure if that's what you mean ("what if that is the only release they have"?), but if the band would get approved we'd list the non-metal albums too.

Mention/proof of splits can just be included in the submission notes and then added when/if the band gets accepted.

I've relistened to "Disillusion" (which seems to be the supposed physical release and thus the only material relevant to us) and it seems to be (over one) half acoustic/ambient, only the last and parts of the penultimate song could be considered black metal. Borderline at best.

And what do you mean with "I have 1 cd of my first demo"? Is that the only copy? That photo you linked is no proof, by the way. It takes no time at all to just grab a jewel case and stick a printout of the cover in it...

Sebkha-Chott has been rejected (http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Sebkha-Chott/3540355999), but I think this is an error.Actually Sebkha-Chott plays metal and many other styles, all mixed. Some of the albums are not "predominantly" metal, some others are. I would suggest to listen to The Ne[XXX]t Epilog, and maybe to scan a bit the tunes, cause they indeed don't begin with metal parts.

I hear next to no metal at all in that album. That's just an experimental crucible pot which may happen to feature some metal-oid passages somewhere due to its "wacky" nature, not experimental metal. If that's their most metallic album the answer is an obvious no. I mean, come on, that's not even a borderline case. You could just as well submit Ozric Tentacles and expect us to approve it...

Quote:

As others proofs that Sebkha-Chott belongs metal world, they've been playing twice at Brutal Assault Festival in Czech Republic (alongisde with Nile, Behemoth, Napalm Death...), and they've been many times reviewed in metal mag/webzines (metal1.info, Hard'n'Heavy, Hard Rock Mag, ...).

All of this makes absolutely no matter if the music isn't metal.

Quote:

You might want to listen to that particular tracks to get a bit of metal (skipping the introduction):

That's one track that features vaguely metallic passages (although sounds more like heavy industrial). That doesn't make them a metal band. Please (re-?)read the rules... we need at least one metal album, not some parts in a few songs scattered over a big discography that might be called metal if one is feeling particularly generous that day.

I had tried to submit an old band a few months ago but was stopped. That the band was black listed. You probably know them. G.B.H. They don't just play punk they play Crossover Thrash Metal, listen to their album "Church Of The Truly Warped" that is the first album I had ever heard from them.

I had tried to submit an old band a few months ago but was stopped. That the band was black listed. You probably know them. G.B.H. They don't just play punk they play Crossover Thrash Metal, listen to their album "Church Of The Truly Warped" that is the first album I had ever heard from them.

Although I can see what you're getting at, it sounds more like hardcore/street punk than crossover thrash to me. Not metal enough.

This is revisionism. The nu-metal term appeared around 1998 (probably in Germany; anyone knows exactly?). It's easy to retrospectively pinpoint the influences to the genre, but a line must be drawn.

Shifting the goalposts now? It's not about the term, it's about the time period that music style (that later got called nu-metal) started to appear. The "term" might have appeared in 1998, but the bands that got this label existed several years before that. Rage Against the Machine's debut was released in 1992. Korn's debut was in 1994. They called it "rap metal" then, or whatever, but so what? It's the same obnoxious non-metal bollocks.

Also, notice how Black Sabbath is tagged "doom" on this site, even if the term didn't appear until later. Notice how Steppenwolf isn't on this site. How many bands featured on this split are death metal? Not a single one of them.

Quote:

They don't sound like nu metal to me any more than "Walk" by Pantera does.

Funny you should say that, "Walk" is pretty much a great example of nu-metal. If all Pantera songs were like Walk, they'd have been blacklisted from the site since day one.

Quote:

As for the mallcore label, it could apply to any band whose music is sold at Wal-Mart.

Negative. You want to argue about the origins of terms so bad, well, this term was created specifically as a derogatory term against nu-metal specifically, and it originated on the metal-rules.com forums circa 1999-2000. I know... I was there when it happened. (I didn't come up with the term myself, but I found it amusingly accurate and a good replacement over the misnomer "nu-metal".)

Quote:

Another current that bothers me is the tendency (displayed here in and in a few other posts) to cite an obvious-non-metal song or song segment in a band's discography to arbitrate on their non-metalness.

Which isn't what I did.

Quote:

It would be better to use an approximate average of a band's songs to speak of their metalness. Almost every Ozzy-era Black Sabbath album has one or more non-metal songs (acoustic instrumentals or things like Changes or It's Alright). Anyone trying to use that kind of logic on them would be an idiot.

Kind of like how people putting words in other people's mouths would be idiots, I suppose. I mean, of course if the rest of their catalogue was completely different it'd be something else, much like "I'm the Man" doesn't exclude Anthrax from this site, but let's not kid ourselves, that song was consistent with the rest of their sound.

_________________

Von Cichlid wrote:

I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Ha ha, wasn't trying to push you to accept the band I was just stating the obvious that you guys at the metal professionals, I really enjoy this website. It's the greatest music information source ever. Thanks!

Misfortune from Japan was blacklisted for physical release reasons or metalness? to my ears they sound like millions of other bands listed here (Shroud of Distress, Grauzeit, Gris and lots of other)... i suppose it's for physical release.. the album was released on november 7th- http://www.google.it/imgres?um=1&hl=it& ... x=81&ty=71

So, not trying to argue against the rejection, but my submission of the Spanish band Phorceps was rejected because they are "hard rock - not metal enough", and while I'll be the first to admit that a couple of their songs are straight up hard rock, I'd say that there are some bands in the Archives that sound more or less as metal as this or this.

Anyone care to confirm that the problem is with my ears perceiving metalness where there is none? Thanks in advance.

i don't know why i was rejected. this is the second time already. my first band was also rejected. i have a release and intended to add a link for that but you keep pushing your restrictions. i've put the photo cover art of the release and a logo and names of the songs but that wasn't good enough for you. ok, stick with your policy like i care that's something not in the metal or any other spirit for thast matter.

Please read the rules. You need to provide evidence of metalness (e.g. sound samples) and of a physical release (e.g. CD, tape or LP -- mp3/digital-only albums do not count).

So, what part of that don't you understand? Did you read the rules, or not? Did you read the "important reminders" when adding a new band, or not? If your band does not have a physical album and only mp3s, then it's not acceptable, as the rules say.

_________________

Von Cichlid wrote:

I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

sorry, but i can't acquire that kind of release as i don't have the means of making it physical as you want it to be. i don't have anyone interested or would go signing a deal with any record house cause i do it exclusively in the form of mp3's. think i'm not the only one doing it. if you do not wish to help me than fine. i'll look for some other way to be recognized or when i sort out some issues you proposed but i just don't see how.

sorry, but i can't acquire that kind of release as i don't have the means of making it physical as you want it to be. i don't have anyone interested or would go signing a deal with any record house cause i do it exclusively in the form of mp3's. think i'm not the only one doing it. if you do not wish to help me than fine. i'll look for some other way to be recognized or when i sort out some issues you proposed but i just don't see how.

I'm sorry to hear you don't have $5. That's what it cost me to put out my demo on 5 CD-R's. I'm also fairly certain you could sell five copies.